Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Hiren Mehta proxy advocate for Adv. S. N. Gupta on behalf of the Revision Petitioner/original Opponent, namely – Barclays Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity) and Adv. Uday Wavikar on behalf of the Respondent/original Complainant, namely – Mr. Mehul Thakkar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity).
[2] This is a revision petition filed by the Bank against the order dated 8/11/2011 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.210 of 2011, Mr. Mehul Thakkar Vs. Barclays Bank. The order is passed on 8/11/2011, which was returnable date, on finding that the Bank had remained absent despite due service of notice and had not put in its appearance or had not filed its written version and nobody appeared on behalf of the Bank on the said date. In the circumstances, the District Forum was left with no other option but to proceed ex-parte against the Bank. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the Bank has filed present revision petition.
[3] Upon hearing both the learned counsels, we are of the view that a chance is required to be given to the Bank to contest the consumer complaint before the District Forum. It is no doubt true that there was a default on the part of the Bank in not filing its written version on the returnable date and not appearing before the District Forum on 8/11/2011. But then, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to give one fair chance to the Bank to contest the matter by setting aside the order passed by the District Forum proceeding ex-parte against the Bank.
[4] It is to be borne is mind a consumer complaint is required to be disposed of within a period of 90 days as per mandate of the parliament and if, this sort of indulgence is permitted then, no complaint would ever be disposed of within a period of 90 days and unlike Civil Courts we have to got to be very meticulous in proceeding further stage by stage. The District Forum, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the Bank on finding that the Bank had remained absent despite due service of notice. Be that as it may, by allowing this revision petition, we are inclined to permit the Bank to contest the matter in the District Forum since the complaint is already pending on the file of the District Forum.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
Revision Petition is allowed.
Subject to payment of costs of `1,000/- payable by the Revision Petitioner to the Respondent within a period of 30 days from today (since the order is passed in presence of the parties) impugned order dated 8/11/2011 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.210 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside.
District Forum is directed to accept the written version and affidavits, if any that may be tendered by the Revision Petitioner in the District Forum.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced and dictated on 03rd February, 2012
